ETHICAL SYSTEMS
There is simply no way the various classical
ethical systems could be discussed in detail here. So I will instead simply
give a brief description of them.
1. Utilitarianism
According to Merriam/ Webster Online utilitarianism is: “a doctrine
that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right
conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically: a theory
that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure
over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” For utilitarian
ethicists the main considerations for ethical behavior is the consequence
of a behavior. If the behavior increases the pleasure or well being of one
self, or better yet society as a whole, then it’s a morally right behavior.
If it doesn’t do either then it’s morally wrong.
It’s from the utilitarians that we get the axiom that “the end justifies the means” as well as the axiom, by the most famous of utilitarians John Stuart Mill, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. What is defined as acceptable pleasure depends on which utilitarian philosopher one reads. Some will say it’s an hedonistic pleasure of the senses while others raise it to a more sophisticated level of well being that includes intellectual as well as sensual pleasures.
While utilitarians are generally situationists Mill did hold that people should adopt rules to guide their behavior rather than to calculate the consequences of their actions each time.
2. Deontological It’s from the utilitarians that we get the axiom that “the end justifies the means” as well as the axiom, by the most famous of utilitarians John Stuart Mill, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. What is defined as acceptable pleasure depends on which utilitarian philosopher one reads. Some will say it’s an hedonistic pleasure of the senses while others raise it to a more sophisticated level of well being that includes intellectual as well as sensual pleasures.
While utilitarians are generally situationists Mill did hold that people should adopt rules to guide their behavior rather than to calculate the consequences of their actions each time.
Let us look again at Merriam/ Webster Online for a definition. Deontological
is: “the theory or study of moral obligation.” Deontological ethics are
in essence law-based ethics. Unlike utilitarian ethics in which the only
rule of ethical behavior is its consequence for deontologicalists ethical
behavior is based on following rules and moral laws regardless of their
consequences. For a pure deontological ethicist right is always right and
wrong is always wrong. Even if it makes matters worse. An example of deontological
ethical behavior is if stealing is declared wrong then, even if it meant
the starvation of an innocent child for example, theft would be wrong in
all cases.
A few deontological ethicists hold that logic or reason (such as “natural law”) may be the source of the rules. Yet, for the majority of deontologists the source of moral laws and rules are usually from what they consider to be divine command. These are usually lifted from certain biblical passages, or some other forms of written script held as sacred. Some will add to the scriptural texts additional laws or rules of behavior set by certain clerical authorities.
A few deontological ethicists hold that logic or reason (such as “natural law”) may be the source of the rules. Yet, for the majority of deontologists the source of moral laws and rules are usually from what they consider to be divine command. These are usually lifted from certain biblical passages, or some other forms of written script held as sacred. Some will add to the scriptural texts additional laws or rules of behavior set by certain clerical authorities.
3. Antinomianism
Again we need to go back to Merriam/ Webster Online. According to Merriam/
Webster antinomianism comes from the Medieval Latin antinomus, from Latin
anti- + Greek nomos law. It defines an antinomian as:
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation
2 : one who rejects a socially established morality
Antinomian ethics is the complete opposite of either deontological or utilitarian ethics. It holds that there are no laws and no basic principles of morality. For them this lack of binding moral rules may be limited to a specific group that holds itself above moral laws or for people in general. For an antinomian, unlike the utilitarians, the consequences to another or society for one’s own behavior can’t be held as a rule. The secular version of this system is sometimes referred to as existential ethics. This system holds that because we are truly free and since we must each decides our own meaning and value then when making a moral decision an antinomianlists is not subject to any limitation beyond what he wishes. Also he has no responsibility to anyone or anything other than himself. Therefore, society cannot hold the individual as accountable to anyone but himself.
Historically antinomianism arose in the Christian community first among some of the Gnostics. Theoretically, a Christian who holds the most extreme version of this system would believe that they could commit any heinous act against another and they would not only still be viewed positively by God but would actually be in keeping with God’s mandate. No modern Christian group or denomination calls itself antinomian though the charge is sometimes leveled by the critics of certain particular groups. Deontologists most commonly level the charge. The Anabaptists were accused of being antinomians and so was Anne Hutchinson during Puritan America.
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation
2 : one who rejects a socially established morality
Antinomian ethics is the complete opposite of either deontological or utilitarian ethics. It holds that there are no laws and no basic principles of morality. For them this lack of binding moral rules may be limited to a specific group that holds itself above moral laws or for people in general. For an antinomian, unlike the utilitarians, the consequences to another or society for one’s own behavior can’t be held as a rule. The secular version of this system is sometimes referred to as existential ethics. This system holds that because we are truly free and since we must each decides our own meaning and value then when making a moral decision an antinomianlists is not subject to any limitation beyond what he wishes. Also he has no responsibility to anyone or anything other than himself. Therefore, society cannot hold the individual as accountable to anyone but himself.
Historically antinomianism arose in the Christian community first among some of the Gnostics. Theoretically, a Christian who holds the most extreme version of this system would believe that they could commit any heinous act against another and they would not only still be viewed positively by God but would actually be in keeping with God’s mandate. No modern Christian group or denomination calls itself antinomian though the charge is sometimes leveled by the critics of certain particular groups. Deontologists most commonly level the charge. The Anabaptists were accused of being antinomians and so was Anne Hutchinson during Puritan America.
4. Virtue
Finally, let us look at the oldest of the ethical systems, virtues.
The classic Greek philosophers advocated a system of ethics based on virtues.
In fact the word “ethics” comes from a word used by Aristotle, “ethika”,
which means “matters having to do with character”.
For the ancients it was the person’s character and their moral traits that defined morality not necessarily rules or consequences. For Aristotle virtue meant doing something well. He looked as virtue as a form of “arete”, meaning goodness or excellence. A modern axiom nearest to this is “anything worth doing is worth doing right”.
To best understand virtuous ethics look at the Boy Scout Law, which is actually a list of virtues. A scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent. To the ancients a virtuous person would be one who had those traits and voluntarily acted upon them without the need for external pressure or influence.
For the ancients it was the person’s character and their moral traits that defined morality not necessarily rules or consequences. For Aristotle virtue meant doing something well. He looked as virtue as a form of “arete”, meaning goodness or excellence. A modern axiom nearest to this is “anything worth doing is worth doing right”.
To best understand virtuous ethics look at the Boy Scout Law, which is actually a list of virtues. A scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent. To the ancients a virtuous person would be one who had those traits and voluntarily acted upon them without the need for external pressure or influence.
